[FrustratedMonky]

Yes. The entire Pluto thing seemed like a pedantic waste of time. Or, at least grandfather it in. Now everyone still thinks of it as a planet, but we have to qualify it when talking : "Oh hey I read an interesting story about the 9th planet Pluto, ooops, sorry, I mean 'dwarf', don't crucify me".

[masklinn]

The only waste of time is from emotionally charged reactions like yours. The IAU vote happened 18 years ago, yet you can’t let it go.

The grandfathering idea makes a negative amount of sense. These are technical classifications on objective criteria.

[Nevermark]

> The IAU vote happened 18 years ago, yet you can’t let it go.

The IAU happened 18 years ago but the vast public hasn’t cottened on to the whole new “cleared orbital debris” concept tacked on to a word that already has widespread use and understanding.

Mistakes don’t become not mistakes because of 18 years. The mistake was that it’s predictable that two definitions for “planet” will still be jostling each other 50 years from now - for no good reason when distinctions could be made without attempts at universal redefinition by a minority of people who use the word for highly specialized reasons.

Instead of just coining a new phrase such as “major planets” for their brand new definition.

What are regular people supposed to say now when they want to say what planet meant which includes Mercury and Pluto? “Planetary like things?”??? It’s a completely avoidable mess.

[masklinn]

> The IAU happened 18 years ago but the vast public hasn’t cottened on to the whole new “cleared orbital debris” concept

The vast public doesn't generally cotton to anything. People don't routinely specify that they're talking about non-avian dinosaurs, or non-tetrapod fishes.

Which doesn't matter, because nobody expects the general public to actually be precise, so nobody gives a shit.

> a word that already has widespread use and understanding.

An enumeration is not an understanding. There is no understanding where Pluto is a planet and Eris is not.

> without attempts at universal redefinition by a minority of people who use the word for highly specialized reasons.

You mean the people who actually use the words as if they meant something?

> What are regular people supposed to say now when they want to say what planet meant which includes Mercury and Pluto? “Planetary like things?”???

That scenario occurs about as often as regular people wanting to say planet excluding pluto before the vote: they're never precise enough that it matters, and in the zero cases where it happens, they can just specify "incuding pluto" or "excluding pluto".

[FrustratedMonky]

Sometimes when forming standards, it is worthwhile to grandfather something in, just for the pure logistical effort needed to change.

Consider that every single book, textbook, poster, pamphlet in the entire world has to be edited and re-printed. Just so we don't have the numbers go to 9.

Every kid for decades was taught about the 9th planet Pluto. 18 years later, and a lot of people still refer to it as a Planet.

And. Now we can't refer to the search for Planet 10 with the much cooler name of Planet X. "Searching for Planet X" sounds cooler. Now every conversation has to be "Searching for Planet X, oh, I mean 9, because of those guys that renumbered them, why did they do that again? Was there a point."

"emotionally charged reactions like yours"

Someone needs to look in the mirror.

[masklinn]

> Someone needs to look in the mirror.

Your entire comment is a weak attempt to justify an emotional response on non-existent grounds and making shit up (wow, people have to update their understanding of classifications, such hard, so never happens), and you waste more time on a subject you complain is a waste of time.

You really should talk to your therapist about your unhealthy relationship with pluto.

[FrustratedMonky]

Do you hear yourself?

Pluto was big enough for your mom.